Bringing you the Best Analytical Legal News
An ‘additional’ access or ‘multiple’ access does not automatically negate the access between the spouses and prove non-access thereof.
Evidence Act, 1872 — S. 112 — Provision under, regarding birth during marriage, conclusive proof of legitimacy — Invocation: Direction issued for
“Madras High Court said that, in the instant case, the prosecution has not been able to establish that there indeed was a crime. In fact, there is an abuse of judicial process when the victim set a criminal law in motion, perhaps with a false FIR”
The proceeding u/s 125 CrPC. is summary in nature in which only prima facie it has to be seen that the applicant is the wife of opposite party. It is a social legislation enacted for protecting the wife, minor children, and parents of a person from vagrancy and destitution.
Section 112 of the Evidence Act underscores the principle that children born within the confines of a legally recognized marriage are deemed legitimate per se and it ensures that no unwarranted assumptions of impropriety or moral transgressions are made and instead places the burden of proof on those who contest the child’s legitimacy.
“In fact, DNA test is intended to rebut the `conclusive proof’ provided under Section 112 of the Evidence Act.”
“A brother for a sister is a protector, confidant and a lifelong friend. They share a unique bond that nothing can replace. A sister is a treasure beyond measure for the brother whereas a brother is a hero in disguise and a role model for the sister”.
While deciding upon the complaint, the NCDRC also made important observations on ethical questions surrounding Assisted Reproductive Techniques and urged the Government to bring out necessary regulations for safe ART procedures.
Rajasthan High Court observed that the DNA Paternity Test requires to be conducted only in exceptional cases, and therefore, the child cannot be used as a weapon to get divorce on ground of adultery, on the strength of outcome of a DNA Paternity Test.
This roundup revisits the analyses of Supreme Court’s judgments/orders on validity of AIBE; ex-communication of Dawoodi Bohras; decriminalisation of adultery; permissibility of DNA test of children to prove allegations of adultery; and more. It also covers reports on the career trajectory & important decisions of Justice Surya Kant and Justice Dipankar Dutta and the newly appointed 7 judges of the Supreme Court; Explainers on important law points; and Cases Reported in SCC Weekly in the month of February.
The Supreme Court held that merely because either of the parties have disputed a factum of paternity, it does not mean that the Court should direct DNA test or such other test to resolve the controversy. Only in exceptional and deserving cases, where such a test becomes indispensable to resolve the controversy the Court can direct such test.
Madhya Pradesh High Court: G.S. Ahluwalia, J. dismissed a petition which was filed against the order passed by Twelfth Civil
Supreme Court: In a case where the husband had disputed paternity of child on suspicion, though the Division Bench comprising of Indira
Delhi High Court: Chandra Dhari Singh, J., decided a maintenance case wherein the marital status of the parties was the crux of
Karnataka High Court: A Division Bench of G I Narendar and M I Arun JJ. allowed the appeal and set aside the
“Indian law leans towards legitimacy and frowns upon bastardy. The presumption in law of legitimacy of a child cannot be lightly repelled.”
Rajasthan High Court: Sanjeev Prakash Sharma, J. dismissed a petition filed by a man who assailed the lower court’s order rejecting an
Delhi High Court: A Bench of G.S. Sistani and Jyoti Singh, JJ. dismissed an appeal filed against the order of the family court
Supreme Court of Pakistan: The Divison Bench of Mushir Alam and Qazi Faez Isa, JJ. allowed a petition seeking to set aside